JUDGMENT : SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. 1. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Management decided to do away with the transportation system of buses in the school and consequently all the drivers who were working were removed and their services were dispensed with. An appeal was preferred by the said driver before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions, Tribunal and under Section 19(2) of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 and the Tribunal has allowed the appeal with directions to the petitioner-Management to reinstate the driver and also pay all consequential benefits vide order dated 21.08.2000. 2. Learned counsel submits that the operation of the order passed by the Tribunal was stayed by this Court vide order dated 10.01.2001 and thereafter the application for vacation of the stay was also dismissed. 3. The school is no more continuing with the transportation system and does not have any buses on which the drivers can be reinstated and it is infact a case of abolition of posts of the Drivers. 4. Learned counsel submits that in the light of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in Khetri Vikas Samiti vs. Director College Education, Government of Rajasthan and Others, AIR 2019 SC 5425 and Shri Maheshwari Senior Higher Secondary School and Another vs. Bhikha Ram Sharma and Others, JT 1996 (2) SC 640, the provisions of Section 18 would have no application and there is no prior approval required to be taken for dispensing with services of persons whose posts have been abolished. 5. No one appears for the respondent. Shri Mahendra Shah, Advocate who was earlier appearing in the case submits that he does not have any instruction in the present case. No other counsel has put in appearance in Court on behalf of the respondent. 6. In Khetri Vikas Samiti vs. Director College Education, Government of Rajasthan and Others, AIR 2019 SC 5425 , the Apex Court has held as under:- “10. From the common judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, it appears that the learned Division Bench has not at all given any reasons on the applicability of Section 18 of the Act in a case where the removal of the concerned employees was due to abolition of posts. From the common judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, it appears that the learned Division Bench has not at all given any reasons on the applicability of Section 18 of the Act in a case where the removal of the concerned employees was due to abolition of posts. In Paragraph 14, the Division Bench of the High Court has observed that no such contention was raised before the Tribunal or before the learned Single Judge and it has been raised for the first time. The aforesaid finding does not seem to be true. From the decision of the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge, it emerges that from the very beginning the case on behalf of the Management was that as the removal of the employees was due to abolition of posts, Section 18 of the Act shall not be attracted. Be that as it may, we propose to consider independently the issue with respect to the applicability of Section 18 of the Act in a case where the removal was due to abolition of the posts. Therefore, the questions which are posed for consideration of this Court are whether: (i) in case of removal due to abolition of posts and more particularly when the respective employees were working on temporary basis and the posts were not approved/sanctioned and their appointments were not approved by the Education Department and the posts to which they are working were not aided posts, Section 18 of the Act would be applicable. (ii) whether the learned Tribunal and the learned Single Judge were justified in holding the abolition of posts bad in law? 11.2. On a fair reading of Section 18 of the Act and Rule 39 of the 1993 Rules, we are of the opinion that Section 18 of the Act and Rule 39 would not be applicable in case of removal of an employee due to the abolition of posts, more particularly when the post to which the employee is working was not aided and that his appointment was not approved by the Education Department. In the case of Bhikha Rm Sharma (supra), this Court has specifically observed and held that in case of termination of the service of the employee due to abolition of post, the question of conducting the enquiry under the Rules does not arise. In the case of Bhikha Rm Sharma (supra), this Court has specifically observed and held that in case of termination of the service of the employee due to abolition of post, the question of conducting the enquiry under the Rules does not arise. Though the said decision was cited and relied upon by the counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant before the Division Bench of the High Court, the Division Bench thereafter has not at all dealt with and/or considered the same. Therefore, the learned Tribunal, learned Single Judge and learned Division Bench of the High Court have materially erred in applying Section 18 of the Act and in holding the removal of the concerned employees which as such was due to the abolition of the posts was hit by Section 18 of the Act. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even the State Government also made its stand clear before the learned Single Judge vide letter dated 25.01.2005 which was placed before the learned Single Judge pursuant to the order passed by the High Court, in which it was specifically stated that there is no necessity for seeking Government approval for the removal of the employees, as the posts to which they were working were not aided posts and that their appointment was not approved by the Education Department. The learned Single Judge has refused to take into consideration the communication dated 25.01.2005 on the ground that the said communication was not placed before the learned Tribunal. The said communication could not have been produced before the learned Tribunal as the said communication was after the decision of the learned Tribunal. When the said communication was placed on record by way of an additional affidavit and that too pursuant to the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the same. Therefore, even as per the State Government also, the prior approval of the State authorities was not required. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, learned Single Judge of the High Court and the learned Tribunal holding that the removal of the concerned employees was hit by Section 18 of the Act, cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.” 7. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, learned Single Judge of the High Court and the learned Tribunal holding that the removal of the concerned employees was hit by Section 18 of the Act, cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.” 7. In view of above, this Court finds that the Management was justified in dispensing with the services of the respondent on account of closing down the transportation system in the school. It is further found that there is no other post of Driver available with the school and therefore, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to have directed the respondent to be reinstated and continued. The post of Driver shall be deeming to be abolished. In view of the entire buses, transport having been closed by the Management. Accordingly the order dated 21.08.2000 passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal cannot be sustained. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal is accordingly set aside. The interim order passed by the Court is made absolute. No costs. 9. All pending application shall also stand disposed of.